Summary
Under the proviso to Regulation 29(2) of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, a notice of voluntary retirement takes effect on expiry of the notice period unless the appointing authority refuses it within that period. A show-cause notice that does not show an intention to start disciplinary proceedings does not stop this, so the later charge-sheet and dismissal were unsustainable and the bank's appeals were dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a notice of voluntary retirement under Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations is deemed accepted if not refused within the notice period.
- Whether the show-cause notice dated 11.11.2010 amounted to institution of disciplinary proceedings, so that proceedings were deemed pending under Regulation 20(3)(i) and (ii) of the Service Regulations.
- Whether the later charge-sheet and order of dismissal could stand.
- Whether the High Court's judgments called for interference.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 29(1) and (2) with proviso, UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995An employee with twenty years' qualifying service may retire on at least three months' written notice. The notice needs acceptance, but under the proviso, if the appointing authority does not refuse permission before the notice period expires, retirement takes effect on expiry; refusal requires a positive order passed and communicated within the period. (¶¶ 16, 17, 26, 29, 30, 43)
- Regulation 20(3)(i) and (ii), UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979An officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, including where a notice to show cause why proceedings should not be instituted has been issued, cannot leave without prior written approval. Read harmoniously with Regulation 29, the bank's power to withhold approval must be exercised by refusing voluntary retirement within the notice period. (¶¶ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Regulation 20(3)(iii), UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979Concerns continuation of proceedings begun before superannuation; the decisions in R.L. Capoor I and II and D.R.P. Sundharam dealt only with this clause and did not consider Regulation 29, so they did not govern this case. (¶¶ 32, 39, 40, 41, 42)
Held
- Following the line of cases from Dinesh Chandra Sangma to Tek Chand, where the rule allows the authority to refuse voluntary retirement, a positive order of refusal must be passed and communicated before the notice period ends; without it, retirement takes effect automatically on expiry of the period. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- Regulation 20(3)(i) and (ii) of the Service Regulations and Regulation 29 of the Pension Regulations must be read together. Voluntary retirement is a distinct right, and the bank's power not to approve departure while proceedings are pending is given effect through refusal within the notice period under the proviso to Regulation 29(2). (¶¶ 33, 34, 35)
- To attract the deemed pendency under Regulation 20(3)(ii), a show-cause notice must show an intention to institute disciplinary proceedings. A notice seeking an explanation and referring only to 'further course of action' does not do so. (¶¶ 36, 37)
- In any event, the existence of a show-cause notice, without an order of refusal by the competent authority within the notice period, does not stop a voluntary retirement notice from taking effect. (¶ 43)
- The notice of 04.10.2010 was not refused within three months; a non-acceptance letter sent after the period expired and after the employee stopped work was of no effect. Retirement took effect on 04.01.2011, and the charge-sheet issued afterwards and the resulting dismissal were not justified. (¶¶ 30, 43, 45)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The respondent is entitled to all post-retiral benefits as directed by the High Court; the bank must settle all dues with applicable interest within three months.